J. McRee Elrod
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:58:00 -0700
Good questions John.
"Myers, John F." <mye...@union.edu> wrote:
>A new coding system, like a successor to MARC? Who are you? And what
>have you done to our colleague Mac?
I'm quite happy with AACR2 (with a few changes such as the RDA way of
entering treaties), as now coded in MARC.
But IF we are to have RDA/FRBR, we first need a coding system which
accommodates it, and ILS which can utilize it.
>But seriously, why would a new coding system be designed if there
>weren't a content standard that called for it?
MARC was developed long before OPACs. A coding system could be
developed (or built using MARC) which allowed for the categories in
FRBR/FRAD, without knowing the form of each element, What difference
does it make in coding whether an abbreviation is spelled out or not?
And so on with other RDA provisions?
>The content standard was the one aspect of this daisy chain over
>which a) the cataloging community had some control, and b) for which
>an agency >existed and could reasonably be adapted to new
>development.
The cataloguing community also has the ability to develop ILS
standards (Martha Yee has made a good beginning), which would need to
be met for an ILS system to receive "accreditation" (or what ever you
would like to call it) from a standard setting body (like that which
accredits MLIS programs). Libraries would be advised NOT to purchase
a system without that credential. Administrators who often make ILS
purchase decisions, often lack the knowledge to judge a system, but
they do understand credtialing, and require it of their librarians.
>In contrast, we have little enough leverage with ILS developers to
>support changes that we can concretely identify, much less something
>so venturesome as new models.
So we work on the link in the daisy chain which has the *least*
difficulty, because we think we can't work on the weakest link? Most
present ILS don't take advantage of the wealth of data now in MARC
records. Left to their own devices, what makes you think FRBR
capability will be forthcoming from ILS vendors?
>MARBI too, while perhaps more responsive to input, seems unlikely to
>spontaneously morph itself into developing a post-MARC coding
>standard.
Perhaps we should consult the music cataloguers. They got "CD" out of
538 and into 500 fast enough, while "DVD" still languishes there.
>There are changes in the process that I would have preferred we had
>taken, but the priority of addressing the content standard is not one
>of them.
Again, we are addressing what is now the strongest link in what you
have called a daisy chain, as opposed to our patron interfaces, the
weakest link.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________